Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wildbill

Why did Mailbu stop using the 8100 Vortec

Recommended Posts

wildbill

I noticed on the 2011 they don't offer the Vortec 8100 anymore. Anybody know why? Were there problems? How is the 6.0L compare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jjackkrash

I am pretty sure GM does not make them anymore. From wikipedia:

The Vortec 8100 7th generation (known as gen VII) Chevrolet big block, has the same bore as a 454 (4.25 inches), but has a stroke of 4.37 inches (111 mm). It is similar to the smaller GM LS engine family in that it has coil-on-plug ignition and a 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3 firing order. It was used in 3/4 ton and larger light trucks, and medium duty commercial vehicles.[11] Produced in the years of 2001–2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MalibuNation

Was it also related to meeting pollution standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
edgeski1

GM couldn't get their overall CAFE standards high enough while offering that engine.

sad to see it go..

Happy for the malibu replacement however-- 6.2LSA yum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrz1

Same reason GM dropped it. Fuel economy. More displacement generally = more thirsty. Similar reason Ford offering Ecoboost smaller displacement turbo 6 cyl in it's F150. When not under full boost, force air motors will generally get better mileage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jjackkrash

Same reason GM dropped it. Fuel economy. More displacement generally = more thirsty. Similar reason Ford offering Ecoboost smaller displacement turbo 6 cyl in it's F150. When not under full boost, force air motors will generally get better mileage.

I don't think Malibu had a choice in the matter, given GM does not make the engine anymore.

I think the 8.1 was doomed when GM stopped offering it as an option in the 2500 and 3500 HD trucks in 2007. It just doesn't make sense to produce so few engines given the economies of scale when they aren't using the engine in their trucks. I have heard that GM produces all of the marine V-8 blocks for all boats that use their marine v-8s everywhere in the world in just 2 shifts at the factory (I am not 100% sure this is true). I would venture to guess that they produced 8.1s for 2008 and 2009 just as a courtesy while the boat companies figured something else out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrz1

Yes, I know. Fuel economy killed it for GM and that in turn killed it for the marine industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobby Light

Yeah I don't think it had anything to do with mpg for Indmar, does the SC engine really do any better in that category?

Edited by 06vlx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrz1

I had one dealer close to factory tell me it was a more efficient powerplant than the 8.1 but that doesnt necessarily mean it uses less fuel. It does after all make 20%+/- more hp than the 8.1 did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkendallmsce

I had one dealer close to factory tell me it was a more efficient powerplant than the 8.1 but that doesnt necessarily mean it uses less fuel. It does after all make 20%+/- more hp than the 8.1 did.

The 8.1 weighs apprx 300# more than the cast iron and aluminum engines. Just as in cars and trucks, more weight mean more gas required to propel that added weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlastRlxi

I believe Volvo Penta bought up all the 8.1's that GM had and still offers the engine with their stern drive and will continue to while their supply lasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85 Barefoot

I have an 8.1. It gets shockingly GOOD fuel economy. 525 pounds of torque allow that engine to work far less hard than the 6's and 6.2s, I forget the torque on the LSA but is it 525? I'm actually quite surprised at my fuel economy. There are more maintenance items on the 8.1 but if it proves it has good longevity (for me), I'll be quite bummed they no longer offer when time to upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkendallmsce

I have an 8.1. It gets shockingly GOOD fuel economy. 525 pounds of torque allow that engine to work far less hard than the 6's and 6.2s, I forget the torque on the LSA but is it 525? I'm actually quite surprised at my fuel economy. There are more maintenance items on the 8.1 but if it proves it has good longevity (for me), I'll be quite bummed they no longer offer when time to upgrade.

You can get 25-30 mpg with the newer corvettes when doing only highway driving.. Much depends on how they are driven and the type of driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TenTwentyOne

I forget the torque on the LSA but is it 525? I'm actually quite surprised at my fuel economy. There are more maintenance items on the 8.1 but if it proves it has good longevity (for me), I'll be quite bummed they no longer offer when time to upgrade.

LSA has 550lb/ft, and the torque curve of the LSA is much flatter than the 8.1. It holds higher amounts of torque up through the RPM range. It is a very good engine. Being that it is Forced Inducted, and a Gen IV Small block, Fuel economy is very good for the amount of HP it puts down. That being said, the 8.1 is tried and true in the marine world, and doesnt have all the extra stuff that can break, ie Supercharger, intercooler, extra hoses, belt tensioners, EGT sensors, the list goes on.... It is sad to see the 8.1 phased out, But the LSA is a monster. Lets just hope it holds up in a boat. It has a very good track record in the CTS-V so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bretski75

I heard the same thing about Volvo Penta buying all that was left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malibudude

The 8.1 weighs apprx 300# more than the cast iron and aluminum engines. Just as in cars and trucks, more weight mean more gas required to propel that added weight.

Isn't the LSA an aluminum block? That's why they don't offer it in the HD trucks, just can't take the abuse towing will put on it compared to the cast iron blocks.... Let's call it by the real name 496.... :rockon: Ya gas mileage sucks but hey its a boat.:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkendallmsce

Isn't the LSA an aluminum block? That's why they don't offer it in the HD trucks, just can't take the abuse towing will put on it compared to the cast iron blocks.... Let's call it by the real name 496.... :rockon: Ya gas mileage sucks but hey its a boat.:biggrin:

Both the LSA and LS3 are aluminum. NOt sure if being aluminum is not able to take the abuse of towing though.

Our LS3 has approx 100 hours on it and not a problem yet. knock on wood!! Not sure why Malibu only offered it for one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TallRedRider

I have an 8.1. It gets shockingly GOOD fuel economy. 525 pounds of torque allow that engine to work far less hard than the 6's and 6.2s, I forget the torque on the LSA but is it 525? I'm actually quite surprised at my fuel economy. There are more maintenance items on the 8.1 but if it proves it has good longevity (for me), I'll be quite bummed they no longer offer when time to upgrade.

I agree 100%. I had that motor in my last boat and was surprised at how well I did on fuel while wakeboarding with heavy ballast. It also did not groan when I loaded her down.

The big thirsty came when I cruised. Seems like when cruising up Lake Powell to Rainbow bridge going 33 MPH, it really guzzled as the RPM's got higher. I was choking about 15+ gallons per hour on that. 8-12 when wakeboarding, depending on how fast we were going, how much we fell and how heavy the ballast was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indyxc

As a GM employee in powertrain, l can add my comments to this.

First off, as mentioned Indmar obviously just purchases the engine from us (GM), and does the marine-zation. The engine wasn't made specifically for marine applications, but obviously worked well in those instances. Around 2007 the heavy duty trucks that the 8.1 L went into shifted to either the 6L gas or 6.6L diesel, with the diesel offering a lot better performance than the 8.1L gas engine, with better mileage. It's not exactly accurate to say that the engine was phased about because of cafe standards, because in 2007 they did not apply to heavy duty trucks. The 6.6L diesel, was not a good boat engine choice, and the 6000 vortec didn't offer enough power compared to a standard moonson, so the 6.2L LSA engine became a good cost effective candiate.

The 8.1L was produced in Tonawanda for 2 more years after 2007 for "industry" applications, but that volume was very low, made on a very old line, so it didn't make sense to keep it. The Gen V engine is coming, so it's safe to assume there will be a "heavy" duty version, that will make it's way into marine application. Alum or Iron, time will tell, but typically as mentioned Iron is a lot more "robust" in heavy duty applications, but is heavier, and with fuel efficiency, and engine design advances, these days anything is possible.

Same with the current 5.7L monsoon engine. We make that engine in Mexico, and that line is idle most days. It was probably orginally setup to run 4000 engines a day when used for vehicle applications, which one day of production would cover malibu's engine needs for a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bretski75

Very Good information IndyXC. Any thoughts on when the 5.7 will be end of life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TenTwentyOne

Isn't the LSA an aluminum block? That's why they don't offer it in the HD trucks, just can't take the abuse towing will put on it compared to the cast iron blocks.... Let's call it by the real name 496.... :rockon: Ya gas mileage sucks but hey its a boat.:biggrin:

Considering that it is the same block as the LS9 (640hp), I cant see the LSA having any issues with durability in a truck application. That block is constructed to take some serious power. The reason you will never see that engine in a pickup, is because it costs almost as much to manufacture as the 6.6l duramax, and would get half the fuel mileage. Not to mention, it would be down on torque from the duramax also. It wouldnt make sense for any consumer to choose that engine over the diesel, when they would cost about the same. Besides that, The L92 (Aluminum Block 6.2l truck engine) has been working very well in GM trucks since 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malibudude

Considering that it is the same block as the LS9 (640hp), I cant see the LSA having any issues with durability in a truck application. That block is constructed to take some serious power. The reason you will never see that engine in a pickup, is because it costs almost as much to manufacture as the 6.6l duramax, and would get half the fuel mileage. Not to mention, it would be down on torque from the duramax also. It wouldnt make sense for any consumer to choose that engine over the diesel, when they would cost about the same. Besides that, The L92 (Aluminum Block 6.2l truck engine) has been working very well in GM trucks since 2007.

I've not been able to find the article that was discussing it. It's been in the Max option since '07 but not in the HD line and therefore not a proven engine for durability compared to the cast iron blocks was their story. I know more sales that GM lost because they only offered the 6.0 and the duramax, not everyone wants/needs a diesel but the 6.0 needs more to be competitive and the 6.2 does that but hasn't been a mainstay engine in the lineup only as an obscure option in certain packages. Cost as much to produce..wow not saying your wrong just had to believe that is the case....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
inlandlaker

I've not been able to find the article that was discussing it. It's been in the Max option since '07 but not in the HD line and therefore not a proven engine for durability compared to the cast iron blocks was their story. I know more sales that GM lost because they only offered the 6.0 and the duramax, not everyone wants/needs a diesel but the 6.0 needs more to be competitive and the 6.2 does that but hasn't been a mainstay engine in the lineup only as an obscure option in certain packages. Cost as much to produce..wow not saying your wrong just had to believe that is the case....

I agree...it's a little hard to believe but you never know. I'm sure much depends on the quantity made annually as well. Maybe Indyxc can chime in here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85 Barefoot

You can get 25-30 mpg with the newer corvettes when doing only highway driving.. Much depends on how they are driven and the type of driving.

Uh, yep. Im comparing our consumption with our personal experience with several small block v drives, none of which are babied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryanbush

Uh, yep. Im comparing our consumption with our personal experience with several small block v drives, none of which are babied.

I have an 08 z06... In a recent 200 mile road trip I averaged 31.2mpg all interstate driving between 75-80mph.

Now playing around in town is a whole other story :rockon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×